From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "david@fromorbit.com" <david@fromorbit.com>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: remove the internal 5% low bound on dirty_ratio Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:36:49 +1000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100826113649.687b453a@notabene> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100826012945.GA7859@localhost> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:29:45 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:40:00PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:14:40 pm you wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:20:54PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:15:35 pm you wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:30:40PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:23:59 pm Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:42:48PM +0800, Neil Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:50:54 +1000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:13:25 pm KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The dirty_ratio was silently limited to >= 5%. This is not > > > > > > > > > > > a user expected behavior. Let's rip it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not likely the user space will depend on the old > > > > > > > > > > > behavior. So the risk of breaking user space is very low. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > > > > > > > > > > CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > > > > > > > > > > <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have tried to do this in the past, and setting this value to > > > > > > > > > 0 on some machines caused the machine to come to a complete > > > > > > > > > standstill with small writes to disk. It seemed there was some > > > > > > > > > kind of "minimum" amount of data required by the VM before > > > > > > > > > anything would make it to the disk and I never quite found out > > > > > > > > > where that blockade occurred. This was some time ago (3 years > > > > > > > > > ago) so I'm not sure if the problem has since been fixed in the > > > > > > > > > VM since then. I suggest you do some testing with this value > > > > > > > > > set to zero before approving this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right, vm.dirty_ratio=0 will block applications for ever.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. And while you shouldn't set the lower limit to zero to avoid > > > > > > this problem, it doesn't answer _why_ this happens. What is this > > > > > > "minimum write" that blocks everything, will 1% be enough, and is it > > > > > > hiding another real bug somewhere in the VM? > > > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > This simple change will unblock the application even with > > > > > vm_dirty_ratio=0. > > > > > > > > > > # echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio > > > > > # echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio > > > > > # vmmon nr_dirty nr_writeback nr_unstable > > > > > > > > > > nr_dirty nr_writeback nr_unstable > > > > > 0 444 1369 > > > > > 37 37 326 > > > > > 0 0 37 > > > > > 74 772 694 > > > > > 0 0 19 > > > > > 0 0 1406 > > > > > 0 0 23 > > > > > 0 0 0 > > > > > 0 370 186 > > > > > 74 1073 1221 > > > > > 0 12 26 > > > > > 0 703 1147 > > > > > 37 0 999 > > > > > 37 37 1517 > > > > > 0 888 63 > > > > > 0 0 0 > > > > > 0 0 20 > > > > > 37 0 0 > > > > > 37 74 1776 > > > > > 0 0 8 > > > > > 37 629 333 > > > > > 0 12 19 > > > > > > > > > > Even with it, the 1% explicit bound still looks reasonable for me. > > > > > Who will want to set it to 0%? That would destroy IO inefficient. > > > > > > > > Thanks for your work in this area. I'll experiment with these later. > > > > There are low latency applications that would benefit with it set to > > > > zero. > > > > > > It might be useful to some users. Shall we give the rope to users, heh? > > > > > > Note that for these applications, they may well use > > > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes for more fine grained control. That interface only > > > imposes a low limit of 2 pages. > > > > I don't see why there needs to be a limit. Users fiddling with sysctls should > > know what they're messing with, and there may well be a valid use out there > > somewhere for it. > > OK, the following patch gives users the full freedom. I tested 1 > single dirtier and 9 parallel dirtiers, the system remains alive, but > with much slower IO throughput. Maybe not all users care IO performance > in all situations? > > Thanks, > Fengguang > --- > writeback: remove the internal 5% low bound on dirty_ratio > > The dirty_ratio was silently limited in global_dirty_limits() to >= 5%. > This is not a user expected behavior. And it's inconsistent with > calc_period_shift(), which uses the plain vm_dirty_ratio value. > > Let's rip the internal bound. > > At the same time, fix balance_dirty_pages() to work with the > dirty_thresh=0 case. This allows applications to proceed when > dirty+writeback pages are all cleaned. And ">" fits with the name "exceeded" better than ">=" does. I think it is an aesthetic improvement as well as a functional one. Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> Thanks, NeilBrown > > CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > CC: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> > CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> > CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 14 ++++---------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-26 08:37:31.000000000 +0800 > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-26 08:37:55.000000000 +0800 > @@ -415,14 +415,8 @@ void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long * > > if (vm_dirty_bytes) > dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE); > - else { > - int dirty_ratio; > - > - dirty_ratio = vm_dirty_ratio; > - if (dirty_ratio < 5) > - dirty_ratio = 5; > - dirty = (dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100; > - } > + else > + dirty = (vm_dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100; > > if (dirty_background_bytes) > background = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_background_bytes, PAGE_SIZE); > @@ -542,8 +536,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > * the last resort safeguard. > */ > dirty_exceeded = > - (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback >= bdi_thresh) > - || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh); > + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback > bdi_thresh) > + || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback > dirty_thresh); > > if (!dirty_exceeded) > break;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "david@fromorbit.com" <david@fromorbit.com>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: remove the internal 5% low bound on dirty_ratio Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:36:49 +1000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100826113649.687b453a@notabene> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100826012945.GA7859@localhost> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:29:45 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:40:00PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:14:40 pm you wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:20:54PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:15:35 pm you wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:30:40PM +0800, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:23:59 pm Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:42:48PM +0800, Neil Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:50:54 +1000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:13:25 pm KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The dirty_ratio was silently limited to >= 5%. This is not > > > > > > > > > > > a user expected behavior. Let's rip it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not likely the user space will depend on the old > > > > > > > > > > > behavior. So the risk of breaking user space is very low. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > > > > > > > > > > CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > > > > > > > > > > <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have tried to do this in the past, and setting this value to > > > > > > > > > 0 on some machines caused the machine to come to a complete > > > > > > > > > standstill with small writes to disk. It seemed there was some > > > > > > > > > kind of "minimum" amount of data required by the VM before > > > > > > > > > anything would make it to the disk and I never quite found out > > > > > > > > > where that blockade occurred. This was some time ago (3 years > > > > > > > > > ago) so I'm not sure if the problem has since been fixed in the > > > > > > > > > VM since then. I suggest you do some testing with this value > > > > > > > > > set to zero before approving this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right, vm.dirty_ratio=0 will block applications for ever.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. And while you shouldn't set the lower limit to zero to avoid > > > > > > this problem, it doesn't answer _why_ this happens. What is this > > > > > > "minimum write" that blocks everything, will 1% be enough, and is it > > > > > > hiding another real bug somewhere in the VM? > > > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > > > This simple change will unblock the application even with > > > > > vm_dirty_ratio=0. > > > > > > > > > > # echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio > > > > > # echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio > > > > > # vmmon nr_dirty nr_writeback nr_unstable > > > > > > > > > > nr_dirty nr_writeback nr_unstable > > > > > 0 444 1369 > > > > > 37 37 326 > > > > > 0 0 37 > > > > > 74 772 694 > > > > > 0 0 19 > > > > > 0 0 1406 > > > > > 0 0 23 > > > > > 0 0 0 > > > > > 0 370 186 > > > > > 74 1073 1221 > > > > > 0 12 26 > > > > > 0 703 1147 > > > > > 37 0 999 > > > > > 37 37 1517 > > > > > 0 888 63 > > > > > 0 0 0 > > > > > 0 0 20 > > > > > 37 0 0 > > > > > 37 74 1776 > > > > > 0 0 8 > > > > > 37 629 333 > > > > > 0 12 19 > > > > > > > > > > Even with it, the 1% explicit bound still looks reasonable for me. > > > > > Who will want to set it to 0%? That would destroy IO inefficient. > > > > > > > > Thanks for your work in this area. I'll experiment with these later. > > > > There are low latency applications that would benefit with it set to > > > > zero. > > > > > > It might be useful to some users. Shall we give the rope to users, heh? > > > > > > Note that for these applications, they may well use > > > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes for more fine grained control. That interface only > > > imposes a low limit of 2 pages. > > > > I don't see why there needs to be a limit. Users fiddling with sysctls should > > know what they're messing with, and there may well be a valid use out there > > somewhere for it. > > OK, the following patch gives users the full freedom. I tested 1 > single dirtier and 9 parallel dirtiers, the system remains alive, but > with much slower IO throughput. Maybe not all users care IO performance > in all situations? > > Thanks, > Fengguang > --- > writeback: remove the internal 5% low bound on dirty_ratio > > The dirty_ratio was silently limited in global_dirty_limits() to >= 5%. > This is not a user expected behavior. And it's inconsistent with > calc_period_shift(), which uses the plain vm_dirty_ratio value. > > Let's rip the internal bound. > > At the same time, fix balance_dirty_pages() to work with the > dirty_thresh=0 case. This allows applications to proceed when > dirty+writeback pages are all cleaned. And ">" fits with the name "exceeded" better than ">=" does. I think it is an aesthetic improvement as well as a functional one. Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> Thanks, NeilBrown > > CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > CC: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> > CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> > CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 14 ++++---------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-26 08:37:31.000000000 +0800 > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-26 08:37:55.000000000 +0800 > @@ -415,14 +415,8 @@ void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long * > > if (vm_dirty_bytes) > dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE); > - else { > - int dirty_ratio; > - > - dirty_ratio = vm_dirty_ratio; > - if (dirty_ratio < 5) > - dirty_ratio = 5; > - dirty = (dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100; > - } > + else > + dirty = (vm_dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100; > > if (dirty_background_bytes) > background = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_background_bytes, PAGE_SIZE); > @@ -542,8 +536,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > * the last resort safeguard. > */ > dirty_exceeded = > - (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback >= bdi_thresh) > - || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh); > + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback > bdi_thresh) > + || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback > dirty_thresh); > > if (!dirty_exceeded) > break; -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-26 1:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-08-20 3:25 [PATCH] writeback: remove the internal 5% low bound on dirty_ratio Wu Fengguang 2010-08-20 3:25 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-20 3:46 ` Rik van Riel 2010-08-20 3:46 ` Rik van Riel 2010-08-20 4:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-08-20 4:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-08-20 5:50 ` Con Kolivas 2010-08-20 5:50 ` Con Kolivas 2010-08-20 5:56 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-20 5:56 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-23 4:42 ` Neil Brown 2010-08-23 4:42 ` Neil Brown 2010-08-23 6:23 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-23 6:23 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-23 6:30 ` Con Kolivas 2010-08-23 6:30 ` Con Kolivas 2010-08-23 7:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-23 7:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-24 0:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-08-24 0:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [not found] ` <201008241620.54048.kernel@kolivas.org> [not found] ` <20100824071440.GA14598@localhost> [not found] ` <201008251840.00532.kernel@kolivas.org> 2010-08-26 1:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-26 1:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-26 1:36 ` Neil Brown [this message] 2010-08-26 1:36 ` Neil Brown 2010-08-26 4:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-08-26 4:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-08-27 10:36 Wu Fengguang 2010-08-27 10:36 ` Wu Fengguang 2010-08-27 10:39 ` Peter Zijlstra 2010-08-27 10:39 ` Peter Zijlstra 2010-08-27 10:39 ` Peter Zijlstra 2010-08-27 13:47 ` Rik van Riel 2010-08-27 13:47 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20100826113649.687b453a@notabene \ --to=neilb@suse.de \ --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \ --cc=hch@lst.de \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \ --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=riel@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.